ÿWPCÙ …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  , 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 0r˜ 0| 0†† 0 1uœ 0d U*u B)Ÿ DCÈ AM ûXv~SvÓÑ B¤ D3Á 0@ô AO4ƃ 0DI D/ B¼˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ + E, - . / e0 1 2 D3 4 Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|x= 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ñÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌOctober€17,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHPð€ÿÜÿìô”(üHPð€P € €'Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€_ûXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ќـ€ÙßL€ !;+'h|` ç `€€Lß›à@ àòòIN€THE€œCOURT›€OF€œCRIMINALÏAPPEALS›€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLEóóÌÌà@ àJUNE€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9509„CC„00292Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àWILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€CORNELIA€A.€CLARK,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌJACK€PROTZMAN,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Possession€of€Marijuana)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòà àFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌWilliam€Carter€Conwayà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ236€Court€Squareà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSuite€205à àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌFranklin,€TN€37064à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌJoe€P.€Binkley,€Sr.à àà àà àà àà àSarah€M.€BranchÌFirst€American€Centerà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌSuite€2395à àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243Ì315€Deadrick€StreetÌNashville,€TN€37238à àà àà àà àJoseph€D.€BaughÌ(On€Appeal€Only)€à àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDerek€K.€SmithÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€937Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TN€37065„0937ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÇà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Jack€Protzman,€appeals€as€of€right€the€sentence€he€received€afterÏpleading€guilty€in€the€Williamson€County€Circuit€Court€to€possession€with€intent€to€sell€not€lessÏthan€ten€(10)€pounds€nor€more€than€seventy€(70)€pounds€of€marijuana.€€He€was€sentenced€toÏthe€maximum€eight€(8)€years€as€a€Range€II€offender€and€a€$50,000€fine€was€imposed.€ÏAppellant€raises€three€issues€on€appeal:€(1)€the€trial€court€violated€sentencing€principles€whenÏit€sentenced€him€to€the€maximum€term€and€imposed€the€maximum€fine;€(2)€the€trial€court€erredÏin€ordering€that€the€current€sentence€be€served€consecutively€to€any€outstanding€sentences€inÏNorth€Carolina€or€Texas;€and€(3)€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€allowing€proof€of€a€mitigating€factor.€€Ìà àFinding€no€reversible€error€in€the€record,€we€affirm€the€appellantððs€sentence€in€allÏrespects.Ìà àOn€April€8,€1993€appellant€was€arrested€at€the€Red€Lobster€in€Franklin€for€possession€ofÏmarijuana,€which€was€discovered€hidden€in€a€pickup€truck€he€was€driving.€€The€amount€wasÏlater€determined€to€be€fifty„three€(53)€pounds.€€The€case€went€to€trial€on€March€22,€1995€andÏafter€the€Stateððs€opening€statement,€appellant€changed€his€plea€to€guilty.€€€Ìà àAlthough€he€pled€guilty,€appellant€maintained€his€innocence€at€the€sentencing€hearingÏand€testified€that€he€was€not€aware€that€there€was€any€marijuana€in€the€truck.€€Appellant€livedÏin€Florida€at€the€time€of€the€offense€and€had€driven€to€Nashville€for€a€business€meeting.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€met€with€David€Lentz,€who€asked€him€to€drive€a€pickup€truck€to€a€certain€location.€ÍAfter€stopping€at€appellantððs€hotel€room€to€get€the€keys€to€the€truck,€Lentz€and€a€companionÏdrove€appellant€to€the€Red€Lobster€in€Franklin.€€Appellant€went€inside€the€restaurant,€madeÏseveral€phone€calls€and€then€made€his€way€to€the€truck€in€the€parking€lot.€€He€stated€that€heÏlooked€in€the€cab€of€the€truck€and€in€the€bed€of€the€truck,€but€saw€nothing.€€He€then€got€into€theÏtruck,€started€the€engine€and€was€immediately€surrounded€by€undercover€police€officers.€€AfterÏa€search€of€the€truck,€marijuana€was€found€hidden€in€the€roof€of€the€truckððs€camper€top.€€Ìà àAt€the€guilty€plea€hearing,€the€State€offered€a€slightly€different€version€of€the€facts.€€TheÏDistrict€Attorney€asserted€that€the€entire€deal€had€been€organized€by€the€appellant€and€that€heÏroutinely€performed€operations€in€this€manner.€€Before€appellant€arrived€in€Nashville,€theÏpolice€arrested€David€Lentz€on€drug€charges.€€Lentz€agreed€to€provide€them€with€informationÏand€ultimately€led€them€to€appellant.€€Ìà àAppellantððs€criminal€record€reflected€convictions€for:€(1)€possession€of€ten€(10)€poundsÏof€marijuana€with€the€intent€to€sell€in€Shelby€County€in€May€of€1991;€(2)€eleven€(11)€counts€ofÏembezzlement€of€state€property€in€North€Carolina€in€October€of€1991;€(3)€violation€of€theÏEmployment€Security€Law€of€North€Carolina€for€failure€to€file€required€wage€reports€in€1989;Ïand€(4)€passing€a€worthless€check€in€the€amount€of€$2,861.75€in€North€Carolina€in€1989.€€TheÏrecord€reflects€that€appellant€pled€guilty€to€each€of€the€above€offenses.€€In€addition,€theÏappellant€admitted€at€sentencing€that€he€was€free€on€an€appeal€bond€from€a€Texas€court€whenÏhe€committed€the€present€offense.€€The€Texas€conviction€was€for€transporting€over€fifty€(50)Ípounds€of€marijuana,€for€which€he€received€a€sentence€of€twelve€(12)€years.€€When€the€presentÏoffense€was€committed,€appellant€was€on€probation€in€Shelby€County€and€North€Carolina.Ìà àIn€mitigation,€the€appellant€offered€proof€that€he€was€not€armed€when€this€offense€wasÏcommitted;€that€he€played€a€minor€role€in€the€commission€of€the€crime;€that€he€had€assisted€lawÏenforcement€officials€in€the€apprehension€of€other€offenders;€that€he€had€acceptedÏresponsibility€for€all€his€prior€crimes;€that€his€previous€convictions€were€primarily€ð ðwhite€collarÏcrimesðð€that€did€not€involve€violence€or€bodily€injury;€and€that€incarceration€would€be€of€noÏbenefit.€€Appellant€also€introduced€proof€of€charitable€acts€done€in€his€home€community€ofÏTavares,€Florida.€Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€only€one€mitigating€circumstance:€appellantððs€conduct€did€notÏcause€or€threaten€serious€bodily€injury.€€It€refused€to€find€his€assistance€to€law€enforcementÏofficials€to€be€a€mitigating€factor.€€He€had€provided€no€help€to€State€officials€and€he€had€noÏindependent€proof€of€assistance€provided€to€federal€officials.€€For€enhancement€purposes,€theÏtrial€court€found€three€factors.€€First,€the€appellant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions.€ÏSpecifically,€he€has€ten€(10)€felony€convictions€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€make€him€aÏmultiple€offender€as€well€as€the€Texas€conviction€which€was€being€appealed.€€In€addition,€theÏappellant€had€been€subject€to€several€forfeitures€of€personal€property,€including€the€seizure€ofÏ$533,000€in€cash€by€Louisiana€authorities.€€Secondly,€the€court€found€an€unwillingness€toÏcomply€with€the€terms€of€a€sentence€for€release€into€the€community€demonstrated€byÏappellantððs€failure€to€comply€with€the€terms€of€his€probation€in€Shelby€County€and€in€NorthÍCarolina.€€Finally,€the€present€offense€was€committed€while€on€probation€and€while€out€on€anÏappeal€bond€from€Texas.Ìà àThe€trial€court€noted€that€appellantððs€testimony€was€unbelievable€and€ludicrous.€ÏAppellant€was€sentenced€to€œeight€(8)›€years€as€a€Range€II€offender€and€fined€$50,000.€€The€trialÏcourt€found€him€unsuitable€for€alternative€sentencing.€€The€court€also€ordered€that€appellantððsÏsentence€be€served€consecutively€to€any€outstanding€sentences€in€North€Carolina€or€Texas.Ì€à àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€violated€sentencing€principles€when€it€sentencedÏhim€to€the€maximum€term€and€imposed€the€maximum€fine.€€Although€raising€other€points,€theÏcrux€of€appellantððs€argument€is€that€he€was€an€appropriate€candidate€for€alternativeÏsentencing.€€Because€the€trial€courtððs€findings€are€amply€supported€by€the€record,€appellantððsÏissue€is€without€merit.€€Ìà àIt€is€our€duty€to€conduct€a€de€novo€review€of€appellantððs€sentence€with€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€This€presumption,€however,€isÏconditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÏ166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€conducting€this€review,€we€must€follow€certain€procedures€as€setÏforth€in€the€statute€and€consider€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(2)Ï[t]he€presentence€report;€(3)€[t]he€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(4)€[t]he€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminalÏconduct€involved;€(5)€[e]vidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€theÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€ðððð40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)Í[a]ny€statement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€own€behalf€aboutÏsentencing.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„210€(Supp.€1995).€Ìà àAppellant€asserts€that€he€was€an€appropriate€candidate€for€community€corrections.€ÏWhile€we€are€inclined€to€agree€that€appellant€meets€the€statutory€eligibility€requirements€forÏcommunity€corrections,€the€statute€does€not€provide€that€all€offenders€who€meet€the€standardsÏare€entitled€to€such€relief.€€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919,€922€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€òòSeeóóÏòòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Grandberryóó,€803€S.W.2d€706,€707€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€StatutoryÏconsiderations€militating€against€alternative€sentencing€are€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àConfinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€who€hasÏa€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;€[c]onfinement€is€necessary€to€avoidÏdepreciating€the€serousness€of€the€offense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suitedÏto€provide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses;€orÏ[m]easures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recently€beenÏapplied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„103(1)(A)„(C)€(1990).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169Ï(Tenn.€1991).€€Ìà àThe€record€supports€these€factors€which€militate€against€community€corrections.€ÏAppellant€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;€it€is€apparent€that€he€is€a€professional€drugÏcourier.€€While€none€of€the€offenses€committed€were€violent€ones,€their€numerosity€is€significantÏand€the€light€punishment€thus€far€imposed€has€proven€to€be€no€deterrent.€€The€offense€hereÏwas€a€serious€offense€in€that€appellant€was€transporting€fifty„three€(53)€pounds€of€marijuana,Ïno€small€quantity.€€Furthermore,€the€less€restrictive€measures€previously€imposed€upon€theÍappellant€have€been€unsuccessful.€€When€he€committed€this€offense,€he€was€on€probation€fromÏShelby€County€and€also€North€Carolina.€€Each€time€he€has€received€a€suspended€sentence€orÏnon„confinement,€the€appellant€has€subsequently€committed€another€crime.€€These€factsÏsupport€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€alternative€sentencing€for€the€appellant.€Ìà àWe€dispose€of€appellantððs€argument€as€to€probation€in€a€similar€manner.€€We€are€awareÏthat€it€was€the€intent€of€the€legislature€to€encourage€alternatives€to€incarceration.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð40„35„102€(Supp.€1995).€€We€are€also€aware€of€the€eligibility€for€probation€of€allÏdefendants€sentenced€to€eight€years€or€less.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„303€(Supp.€1995).€ÏHowever,€mere€eligibility€does€not€automatically€entitle€a€defendant€to€this€alternative.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð40„35„303€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€(Supp.€1995)€and€òòState€v.ÏFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€787€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€There€is€an€intent€to€incarcerate€thoseÏdefendants€whose€criminal€histories€indicate€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€ofÏsociety€and€a€failure€of€past€efforts€to€rehabilitate.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„102€(Supp.Ï1995).€€The€trial€court€here€denied€appellant€probation€because€he€had€no€ties€to€theÏcommunity€and€his€disregard€for€authority.€€We€agree€with€these€reasons.€Ìà àAdditionally,€the€trial€courtððs€consideration€of€the€appellantððs€veracity€was€proper€inÏevaluating€his€eligibility€for€alternative€sentencing.€€An€offenderððs€truthfulness€at€trial€orÏsentencing€is€a€factor€that€may€be€considered€and€probation€may€be€denied€on€this€ground.€ÏòòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€259„60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)€(citations€omitted).€€Along€thisÏsame€vein,€truthfulness€is€probative€on€the€issue€of€amenability€to€rehabilitation,€the€very€goalÍof€alternative€sentencing.€€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377,€380€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)Ï(citations€omitted).€€In€this€case,€the€trial€judge€said€she€had€ð ðnever€seen€a€witness€sit€on€aÏstand€and€tell€as€many€falsehoods€or€make€as€many€technical€or€evasive€answers€asÏ[appellant]€has.ðð€€The€record€is€replete€with€evidence€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€denial€ofÏalternative€sentencing.€Ìà àAppellant€attacks€the€characterization€of€his€prior€convictions€used€to€classify€him€as€aÏRange€II€offender.€€He€argues€that€the€eleven€(11)€count€embezzlement€conviction€should€beÏconsidered€one€conviction€under€the€twenty„four€(24)€hour€merger€rule.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð40„35„106(a)(4)€(1990).€€However,€the€record€reflects€that€each€count€represents€the€failure€toÏpay€sales€tax€that€occurred€each€month€for€several€months.€€The€violations€were€not€part€of€aÏsingle€course€of€conduct€that€occurred€within€twenty„four€(24)€hours.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„106(a)(4)€(1990).€€As€such,€they€are€not€subject€to€the€œtwenty„four€(24)›€hour€merger€rule.€ÏAppellantððs€criminal€record€is€overwhelmingly€sufficient€to€satisfy€the€requirements€of€a€RangeÏII€multiple€offender.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„106€(1990).€€The€sentence€is€not€excessive.€€Ìà àNext,€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ordered€that€his€sentence€beÏserved€consecutively€to€outstanding€sentences€in€North€Carolina€or€Texas.€€He€incrediblyÏcontends€that€the€only€basis€present€for€consecutive€sentencing€is€that€the€offense€wasÏcommitted€while€on€probation€and€this€was€considered€in€error.€€Finding€that€the€trial€court€didÏnot€abuse€its€discretion,€we€affirm€the€order€of€consecutive€sentencing.Ìà àWhile€consecutive€sentences€are€not€to€be€routinely€given,€the€decision€rests€within€theÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„115€Sentencing€Commission€CommentsÏ(1990).€€However,€the€legislature€has€given€trial€courts€direction€by€setting€forth€criteria€to€beÏconsidered€in€ordering€that€sentences€be€served€consecutively.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„115Ï(1990).€€In€ordering€consecutive€sentences,€the€trial€court€specifically€relied€upon€appellantððsÏstatus€as€a€professional€criminal,€his€extensive€criminal€history,€and€the€fact€that€he€was€onÏprobation€at€the€time€of€this€offense.€€These€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.Ìà àHad€the€trial€proceeded,€the€State€was€prepared€to€prove,€through€testimony€of€DavidÏLentz€and€others,€that€appellant€routinely€organized€drug€runs€from€Texas€to€Tennessee,€usingÏthe€same€pickup€truck€and€the€same€associates€each€time.€€He€even€used€equipment€at€theÏsame€woodworking€shop€each€time€to€cut€into€the€false€roof€in€the€camper€top€to€retrieve€theÏmarijuana€and€to€replace€the€false€roof.€€The€record€supports€a€finding€that€appellant€reliedÏupon€drug€trafficking€for€his€livelihood.€€Appellantððs€testimony€about€previous€employment€withÏhis€brother€was€questionable.€€His€ability€to€pay€hefty€fines€imposed€by€other€courts€and€hisÏlifestyle€indicated€a€lucrative€profession€that€was€not€legitimately€corroborated€at€sentencing.€ÏHis€previous€convictions€indicate€a€lengthy€criminal€history.€€€Ìà àFurthermore,€the€appellant€clearly€was€on€probation€at€the€time€this€offense€wasÏcommitted.€€The€1991€Shelby€County€conviction€carried€a€three€(3)€year€probation€term,€whichÏis€apparent€on€the€face€of€the€judgment.€€Additionally,€the€appellant€received€probation€for€hisÏ1991€embezzlement€convictions€in€North€Carolina.€€He€was€given€a€ten€(10)€year€suspendedÍsentence,€ordered€to€pay€restitution€and€placed€on€probation€for€five€(5)€years€as€a€result.€ÏNeither€of€these€probationary€periods€had€expired€at€the€time€of€this€offense.€€Appellantððs€NorthÏCarolina€probation€had€not€terminated€upon€his€payment€of€restitution,€as€he€asserts.€€TheÏpresentence€report€indicates€that€appellantððs€North€Carolina€probation€officer€intended€to€seekÏa€probation€violation€warrant€based€upon€the€current€offense.€€€We€see€no€abuse€of€discretionÏin€the€order€of€consecutive€sentencing.Ìà àFurthermore,€the€trial€courtððs€order€of€consecutive€sentencing€was€mandated€by€RuleÏ32(c)(2)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€This€rule€requires€a€trial€court€to€orderÏconsecutive€sentences€if€the€defendant€has€outstanding€convictions€in€other€states,€unless€theÏcourt€determines€in€its€discretion€to€order€otherwise.€€It€is€apparent€that€appellant€hadÏoutstanding€sentences€in€Texas€and,€as€a€result€of€his€probation€violation,€in€North€Carolina.€ÏThe€trial€courtððs€reliance€on€this€Rule€was€proper.€Ìà àAppellantððs€last€argument€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€admitting€evidence€of€aÏmitigating€factor.€€He€sought€to€rely€upon€his€assistance€to€ð ðauthorities€in€uncovering€offensesÏcommitted€by€other€persons€or€in€detecting€or€apprehending€other€persons€who€had€committedÏthe€offenses.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„113(9)€(1990).€€€Appellant€offered€his€own€testimonyÏregarding€his€assistance€to€federal€DEA€agents€in€South€Carolina€and€it€was€ruledÏinadmissible€by€the€trial€court.€€Because€we,€like€the€trial€court,€find€there€was€no€indicia€ofÏreliability€in€appellantððs€testimony,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àReliable€hearsay€may€be€admitted€at€a€sentencing€hearing€provided€that€the€opposingÏparty€is€permitted€an€opportunity€to€rebut€the€evidence.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„209(b)€(Supp.Ï1995).€€That€the€evidence€have€some€indicia€of€reliability€is€explicitly€required.€€òòId.óó€€€ForÏexemplary€purposes,€the€statute€refers€to€certified€copies€of€convictions€or€other€documents.€€òòId.óó€ÏòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919,€921€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€However,€the€onlyÏcorroboration€offered€by€appellant€was€phone€records€purportedly€reflecting€phone€calls€to€aÏDEA€agent€in€South€Carolina.€€The€appellant€merely€submitted€the€records€as€evidence,Ïwithout€any€proof€to€whom€the€number€belonged.€€Although€he€named€two€agents€with€whomÏhe€dealt,€appellant€did€not€attempt€to€demonstrate€that€the€phone€calls€were€to€either€of€thoseÏagents.€€Neither€did€appellant€offer€certified€copies€of€arrests€or€convictions€in€which€he€hadÏassisted€authorities.€€Appellantððs€own€self„serving€testimony,€without€more,€has€no€indicia€ofÏreliability.Ìà àThe€sentence€given€the€appellant€by€the€trial€court€was€well„documented€andÏcomported€fully€with€the€sentencing€guidelines.€€We€find€no€error€and€therefore€affirm€theÏmaximum€eight€(8)€year€sentence€and€$50,000€fine€imposed€upon€the€appellant.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge€